Another new look??

Earlier in this conversation someone said that people on other sites were receiving much more comments than on this site. What I posted were my own stats from another site showing that this is not so...

Well, all these statistics flying around are hard to follow and without context fall into the, well, that's interesting category. However, I feel obligated to note that I never once said other sites were "receiving much more comments", haven't had the inclination to even try to document any such research, and don't really care except in the undeniable fact that the very few images being posted on PNet for critique are not getting comments. Primarily because there aren't enough active members left to comment.

What I really said is quoted below and I stand behind my comment without hesitation.

other sites where comments are made and hundreds of views occur in a few hours

Mike

Glenn, see above: the stats LineMartel were showing that comments aren't flowing at another site.

Julie:

Come on, you post a mean argument, compose some pretty decent sentences, but in your haste to create a single minded, Don Quixote style defense for all things PNet you forgot to read what I really said. Your quote below is what caused all this confusion and with all the other issues this poor site has, it doesn't need your dogmatic obstructionism.

QUOTE="Julie H, post: 5599697, member: 3885114"]It would be very helpful if you would provide us links to specific examples. If we can see what these sites are doing, what kind of hundreds of people are willing to critique, what kind of picture hundreds of people want to critique, and what kind of critique such hundreds of people are willing to contribute, we can learn from them how to do p.net better.

It's my contention that people simply don't want to do critiques any more. Period. Old-timers loved it, still love it and want it, but they're the dinosaurs. The rest of the world has found out that, while asking for a critique is essentially free, doing or giving a critique is time- and effort-intensive with no reward. Why on earth would any rational person do such a thing?

The good news for you is that my membership runs out today and I go to join all the other hordes of friends I've made here on PNet in the last 10+ years. Unsubscribed.

Mike

t's my contention that people simply don't want to do critiques any more. Period. Old-timers loved it, still love it and want it, but they're the dinosaurs.

Julie, count me as one of the old-timers. I still hope that I can learn from any critiques posted to my photographs.

I still hope that I can learn from any critiques posted to my photographs.

Michael, the thing that I think is underappreciated about writing critiques is that giving them (not getting them) is one of the very best ways to improve your own photography. It forces you to look long and hard, and to put your finger on exactly what it is that you see, what it does for or to you, and what is wrong or right about it. That's one of the best ways to learn good seeing. Forcing yourself to verbalize all of that and put it out in public makes it real; makes you know it. And it's purely selfish, so, if you give critiques for this reason and in this way, quite rational.

Why don't newer photographers notice this advantage? I could speculate (cameras are too good! there's no wait, no [obvious] mistake; it feels like the photograph is the seeing?). I don't think people know what they are not seeing. And it's hard work. You've got to want to work on your seeing; you've got to believe that there's more. That you're not as good as you think you are.

I would add that all of my previous comment #55 above derives from commenting on the pictures of people you don't know.

From what I've seen, the group conversations among friends about their own pictures are lovely and warm and good for the heart (I mean that sincerely) but have almost nothing to do with the looking at of pictures. They are more about figuring out how to fly as a flock, and fine-tuning the pecking order, IMO.

From what I've seen, the group conversations among friends about their own pictures are lovely and warm and good for the heart (I mean that sincerely) but have almost nothing to do with the looking at of pictures. They are more about figuring out how to fly as a flock, and fine-tuning the pecking order, IMO.

I'm not surprised an outsider would have such a cynical view (your sincerity about your cynicism notwithstanding) of what others are doing.

Here's what Sally Bowles says:

I'm somewhat in agreement with Julie's take on critiques.

I'ld like to give them but I'm not interested in receiving and that might not go down very well with others who only want compliments and/or what I've come to recognize from this site's bevy of what seems English Lit. grads..."The Poem About The Photo"...the waxing poetic that makes the critic the star.

From what I've read in the responses from those being critiqued in this fashion, I'ld say it goes right over their heads because most don't ask questions to further the intelligent exchange. They just keep it short and sweet. There's no give and take except the time that was taken by the critic to come up with the poem about the photo. Kinda' takes the wind out of their sails. I get the impression most wanting critiques don't know how to communicate what they really want from it.

Maybe they should just say..."Tell me the poem about my photo".

My guess is that critics who have something insightful to say will be appreciated. Critics who are dolts will be ignored or ridiculed. I've noticed bad communicators with poor people skills often blaming others for their own shortcomings.

So why would you want to get into that sh•t just to wax poetic about a photo?

I've found in my 17 or so years offering general help and some critiques online that there are three different kinds of feedback from total strangers I have no clue about what or how they communicate.

•The first type of response from folks asking for help gives a reply..."Thanks a lot for that. It really helped." Not another word, but they soon start up a long conversation with another contributor over something thinnly on topic and more of a "I can relate because I like that, too." sort of exchange.

•The second type of response is where with every helpful suggestion there is an excuse that basically negates the helpfulness of the initial first response that goes something like this..."I'ld like to shoot that way or shoot that kind of subject but I'm on a limited budget and I don't have those kind of subjects because I live in a small town and I have no means of transportation". Each alternative suggestion gets shot down with an even more inane excuse almost as if they're helpless or really don't want to even be a photographer or at least don't want it bad enough.

•The third type of feedback response is what I call THE GREAT ARGUER where the exchange is actually the person asking for help really wants to dominate and tell how they think is the best way to do something. It's not an even exchange of questions that show genuine interest in learning something new.

Ever since I signed up with PN, giving and receiving critiques has been normal routine for me. Inasmuch as I think that I can learn more from people more advanced than me, I thing critiques from this source are more valuable as learning tools for me than the ones I provide.

Are you saying you learn more from people more advanced than you when you critique them?

Your point seems overly obvious, but I may be missing something and I'm not sure what you are saying.

When you learn from others who gave you information you didn't know before, do you respond back with a demonstration or at least show how what they said actually helped you. The reason for this is that we are all working blind. We don't know how the other person thinks and so don't realize if what they said was interpreted as intended.

Fred G said: ↑

TIm said: ↑

_____________________________________________________________

You may have misunderstood me. I think it's the critics with negative energy and poor communication and people skills who sometimes blame those they critique for not listening or not responding to their critiques in the way they would like. Given what sounds like your generally negative experience with people responding to critiques they get, I would suggest you stop critiquing or learn to live with the kinds of responses you seem to elicit. The reason I want to "get into that sh*t" is because, unlike you, I generally have good experiences when I critique others, have established some long-term dialogues and relationships, and have been responded to substantively, often enough getting into a good back and forth over a particular photo.

I do get why you would refer to this as "waxing poetic" and understand the tone deafness it betrays.

Your point seems overly obvious, but I may be missing something and I'm not sure what you are saying.

Tim,

Are you saying you learn more from people more advanced than you when you critique them?

 

Your point seems overly obvious, but I may be missing something and I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

When you learn from others who gave you information you didn't know before, do you respond back with a demonstration or at least show how what they said actually helped you. The reason for this is that we are all working blind. We don't know how the other person thinks and so don't realize if what they said was interpreted as intended.

Tim, learning from written comments on a website indeed can be haphazard sometimes for the reasons you stated. However, I think you didn't get my original point correctly. The reason for my stating that " . . . critiques [from more advanced photographers] are more valuable as learning tools for me than the ones I provide" has to do with my comparative lack of formal training in photography, my not being to be able to cite differences between Ansel Adams and Minor White (for example), my being considerably less conversant in matters involve photographic technology, and my relative lack of familiarity with art and aesthetics in general, especially as they apply to photography. I am able occasionally provide a meaningful review of a photograph, but it often lacks the depth I've seen in critiques from others. For example, one of my photographs (posted here) was selected as the POTW several weeks ago (posted here FYI). I suggest you read the critiques it generated.

my relative lack of familiarity with art and aesthetics

Michael, while I agree with the rest of your comment re the value of enriching your awareness of connections and background, I think locating your own aesthetic preferences comes more from writing critiques than from listening to the aesthetic preferences of others.

And, I think it's very important that you write critiques of exactly those pictures that don't attract your eye, that aren't familiar, that don't call to you; and that when writing such critiques, you should feel completely at liberty to respond to the picture, not to the social context of its owner/maker. That's the reason I enjoy the Picture of the Week: it's an arbitrary assignment for me to comment on something I would not otherwise comment on. I'm forced to find what I see, good, bad or indifferent.

If I go to the critique queue, I'm going to skip the one's that don't appeal to my already existing preferences, my settled aesthetic. This is lazy and not particularly useful. I think I only really learn from critiqueing the one's that I don't want to critique. And doing so as if without an audience. I don't want to make my critique bland; I don't want to make it PC; I don't want to make it inoffensive, or careful; or manipulative or assertive of anything outside of what's in the picture. I'm not being a salesperson or a waitress or somebody's personal trainer. I'm not interested in being the new best friend of whoever it is that made the picture. I especially don't want to drop any sense of obligation to interact on the person behind the picture. I just want to exercise my eye by escaping my own biases to look only at what I already know I want to look at.

And, I think it's very important that you write critiques of exactly those pictures that don't attract your eye, that aren't familiar, that don't call to you; and that when writing such critiques, you should feel completely at liberty to respond to the picture, not to the social context of its owner/maker.

Julie, I get your point and it's an important one. It tells me that I need to be unafraid to go beyond my comfort zone.